value of faith

Frank Apisa wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:
frank

religion is a product of faith. Beliefs are formed by the ability to believe. Even though these beliefs may be void of value, does that mean that the tool that formed them is useless.

Philosophies are a product of the ability to think. Still, while some theories are sound, others are completely off the wall. My point is just that one false belief, one result of misguided faith, does not render the entire concept worthless..

In religious discussions, beliefs are nothing more than guesses, Cyracuz...no matter how much the folks doing the "believing" want things to be otherwise.

They are guesses...plain and simple.

Faith in those guesses is little more than hard-headedness.

I know it is tough to deal with that reality...but it is the reality of this situation nonetheless.

Naaaa it's not just limited to "religion" Frank. It's science too, if you ask me.

0 Replies

I thought we already made it clear that "faith" and "belief" may even be contraries, that one may rely on beliefs BECAUSE faith is absence or that one does not need belief where faith is present. Faith MAY refer to an attitude about life conditions generally, like the faith we have that the man sitting on the opposite side of the bus will not starting shooting at you or that your tires will not blow out--or, as in the extreme case I cited that Reality (whatever that may be) is in a sense "good" because it is as it should be.
Frank, I agree that one way of using the term is as you say, the "confidence" one has in a belief, a specific attitude. But what about "faith" as a GENERAL confidence not tied to specific beliefs?

0 Replies

JLN wrote:

I thought we already made it clear that "faith" and "belief" may even be contraries, that one may rely on beliefs BECAUSE faith is absence or that one does not need belief where faith is present.

So did I. Right now I'm thinking that faith is what comes from experience, while beliefs are substitutes for experience.

But this is also a good oportunity to mention something that is equally true of the relation between knowledge and wisdom.

Faith cannot be conveyed.
The moment it is communicated it is reduced to beliefs in the ears of the recipient. It is beyond words and language.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Naaaa it's not just limited to "religion" Frank. It's science too, if you ask me.

Faith and science are opposites hep.

Science is a tool you use to determine what is true using provable fact, regardless of what you WANT to be true.

Faith (in this context) is what you use to make guesses about what might be, even if it flies in the face of the facts (as all religions do).

The question here is about the value of faith, science doesn't come into it unless you want to use science to measure some of the effects of faith, which can (and has) been done.

0 Replies

eorl wrote:

Faith (in this context) is what you use to make guesses about what might be.

No. That is the same as science in this context. The line between 'belief' and 'scientific prediction' is fluid, and it comes down to how educated any given guess might be.

So in a sense Einstein was guessing. But he had a lot of faith.

Faith is the ability to navigate without resorting to beliefs or facts in the absence of both.

0 Replies

I agree, Cyracuz. Beliefs--as bits of doctrine--are learned; they are always packaged in language. Faith is derived from experience and is ineffable; it's a feeling.
A person may be taught that people are essentially evil, and he may hold this as a belief, but if throughout his life people have treated him well, he may be, as a personality trait, a trusting person. It is this predisposition to be trusting that may be called an expression of faith.

0 Replies

JLN wrote:

It is this predisposition to be trusting that may be called an expression of faith.

Yes. Maybe it is to master your anticipations... What do you expect? That is a matter of prediction in any shape or hue. This can give rise to a lot of discomfort and worry.
A lot of this can be avoided by "expect the unexpected" (bruce lee kung fu advice Smile

)

But it is sensible, isn't it? Instead of having a solution prepared for any possible problem that might arise I imagine it must be simpler to just have faith in that you will be able to handle what comes.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

hephzibah wrote:

Naaaa it's not just limited to "religion" Frank. It's science too, if you ask me.

Faith and science are opposites hep.

Science is a tool you use to determine what is true using provable fact, regardless of what you WANT to be true.

Faith (in this context) is what you use to make guesses about what might be, even if it flies in the face of the facts (as all religions do).

The question here is about the value of faith, science doesn't come into it unless you want to use science to measure some of the effects of faith, which can (and has) been done.

So science isn't "guessing" with any of the theory's it presents?

0 Replies

No.

Do scientists make guesses about things? Yes. Then they apply the tool of the scientific method to determine the facts.

For you to suggest that faith and science are equal parts guesswork is like saying "Alice's Wonderland" and "Jamaica" are both imaginary places. It can be made true if you choose to twist the language enough, but the fact and fantasy are still obvious.

0 Replies

No no no, I'm not trying to say that at all. I'm not trying to twist anything here. Honest. But science doesn't have an answer for everything, right? So, what are "theory's" then? If they aren't "guesses" that is...

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

eorl wrote:
Faith (in this context) is what you use to make guesses about what might be.

No. That is the same as science in this context. The line between 'belief' and 'scientific prediction' is fluid, and it comes down to how educated any given guess might be.

So in a sense Einstein was guessing. But he had a lot of faith.

Faith is the ability to navigate without resorting to beliefs or facts in the absence of both.

I don't agree. (In fact, it has been argued elsewhere that Einstein may have done even better with a bit less guesswork and a bit more confidence in what his maths was telling him.)

Like I said to Hep, sure scientists make guesses, but until they test those guesses and back them up with facts, they got nuthin'......

Faith, on the other hand, can only exist in the ABSCENCE of evidence.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

No.

Do scientists make guesses about things? Yes. Then they apply the tool of the scientific method to determine the facts.

For you to suggest that faith and science are equal parts guesswork is like saying "Alice's Wonderland" and "Jamaica" are both imaginary places. It can be made true if you choose to twist the language enough, but the fact and fantasy are still obvious.

Actually skip that last post of mine and let me rephrase that. Science doesn't have an answer for everything right? So how then do we determine whether it's really equal parts of guesswork or not?

0 Replies

Having answers to everything is a whole other discussion.

Science is looking at the situation where you notice that eveytime you add 2 apples to 3 apples you get 5 apples. You wonder if it always happens that way. So you test it, you discover it to be true.

Faith is when you say "please let 5 apples magically appear on my table" and you get home and find 5 apples (the results of your little sisters earlier science experiment) but you simply decide your magic worked.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I have no problem facing that reality.

But are guesses worthless?

NO!!!

But insisting that the guesses are right...CAN BE...very worthless.

Quote:

If you're sure where to go, but not how to get there, it might be better to make a guess. Left or right gets you somewhere. Standing still, waiting for the fact might leave you standing for some time...

It might. But guessing left...and insisting that left is the only way...might do worse than leave you standing.

Quote:

But what do you mean when you say that faith is an ethical negative?

If you make a guess that there is a God...or that there are no gods...or that there are gods and the gods want you to do so and so...

...it can lead to a situation where the negative is considerable. But even making guesses and disguising the fact that they are guesses...is an ethical negative because it is a form of lying. Insisting guesses are correct when it appears impossible to truly determine if they are correct...is an ethical negative because it is bullheadedness.

NOT THAT LYING AND BULLHEADEDNESS ARE NECESSARILY ETHICALLY NEGATIVE...BUT IN A SOCIETY THAT HAS ARBITRARILY DECIDED THAT THEY ARE...IT IS AN ETHICAL NEGATIVE.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Cyracuz wrote:
frank

religion is a product of faith. Beliefs are formed by the ability to believe. Even though these beliefs may be void of value, does that mean that the tool that formed them is useless.

Philosophies are a product of the ability to think. Still, while some theories are sound, others are completely off the wall. My point is just that one false belief, one result of misguided faith, does not render the entire concept worthless..

In religious discussions, beliefs are nothing more than guesses, Cyracuz...no matter how much the folks doing the "believing" want things to be otherwise.

They are guesses...plain and simple.

Faith in those guesses is little more than hard-headedness.

I know it is tough to deal with that reality...but it is the reality of this situation nonetheless.

Naaaa it's not just limited to "religion" Frank. It's science too, if you ask me.

I agree. It is not just limited to religion...and I did not suggest it was. I am merely saying that in the religion setting...it is. We are not discussing science here...just religion and philosophy.

But I will say that for science...their guesses are often called guesses or hypotheses...and they are constantly tested rather than simply accepted and defended as absolute truths the way religion handles its guesses.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I thought we already made it clear that "faith" and "belief" may even be contraries, that one may rely on beliefs BECAUSE faith is absence or that one does not need belief where faith is present. Faith MAY refer to an attitude about life conditions generally, like the faith we have that the man sitting on the opposite side of the bus will not starting shooting at you or that your tires will not blow out--or, as in the extreme case I cited that Reality (whatever that may be) is in a sense "good" because it is as it should be.
Frank, I agree that one way of using the term is as you say, the "confidence" one has in a belief, a specific attitude. But what about "faith" as a GENERAL confidence not tied to specific beliefs?

There is no such animal, JL.

0 Replies

JLN,

Your distinction between "faith" and "belief" is a nice one. The "value" of such "faith" would be in terms of both psychological security and direction.
"Belief" may apply to direction but lacks the essence of security.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
I thought we already made it clear that "faith" and "belief" may even be contraries, that one may rely on beliefs BECAUSE faith is absence or that one does not need belief where faith is present. Faith MAY refer to an attitude about life conditions generally, like the faith we have that the man sitting on the opposite side of the bus will not starting shooting at you or that your tires will not blow out--or, as in the extreme case I cited that Reality (whatever that may be) is in a sense "good" because it is as it should be.
Frank, I agree that one way of using the term is as you say, the "confidence" one has in a belief, a specific attitude. But what about "faith" as a GENERAL confidence not tied to specific beliefs?

There is no such animal, JL.

You mean you guess there isn't?

0 Replies

Perhaps a better distinction might be between faith and blind faith. I've used this simile before, but here goes again: if i approach a traffic light, which has just turned green, i proceed through the intersection, taking it on faith that the cross-traffic will stop. That is not blind faith, though, because my experience tells me that overwhelmingly, people obey traffic regulation. I was almost killed one night when an idiot ran a red light at high speed. I cranked the wheel, and watched the top of his car pass the passenger window as he missed me literally by inches. I still proceed through intersections when there is green light, although i'm more cautious than in the past in looking for idiots to right and left.

Blind faith is believing in something without even experiential or anecdotal evidence--without evidence of any kind. (Note to Miss Eppie: when you use experiential evidence to supply the cause for your faith, you are inferentially stating that you have "experienced" god--got an explanation for that?)

0 Replies

eorl wrote:

For you to suggest that faith and science are equal parts guesswork is like saying "Alice's Wonderland" and "Jamaica" are both imaginary places.

Both are imaginary places. The thing is that there are no clear boundaries between one place and another. All such boundaries are imagined, and there really is just 'one place'. It is we who have subdivided it into many places.

0 Replies

value of faith

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know